Wednesday, December 12, 2012

How Evolutionists Stole the Histones

A Textbook Example

The recent finding that the DNA packaging technology and structure, known as chromatin, is not limited to eukaryotes but is also present in archaea, and so from an evolutionary perspective must have “evolved before archaea and eukaryotes split apart—more than 2 billion years ago,” is merely the latest in a string of misadventures evolutionists have incurred ever since they stole the histones.

Histones are the hub-like proteins which (usually) serve as the hubs about which DNA is wrapped in the chromatin structure. Like a thread wrapped around a spool this design packs DNA away for storage with an incredible packing factor. Interestingly, the histone proteins are highly similar across vastly different species. Again, from an evolutionary perspective, this means they must have evolved early in evolutionary history to a very specific design. As one textbook explains:

The amino acid sequences of four histones (H2A, H2B, H3, and H4) are remarkably similar among distantly related species. For example, the sequences of histone H3 from sea urchin tissue and of H3 from calf thymus are identical except for a single amino acid, and only four amino acids are different in H3 from the garden pea and that from calf thymus. … The similarity in sequence among histones from all eukaryotes indicates that they fold into very similar three-dimensional conformations, which were optimized for histone function early in evolution in a common ancestor of all modern eukaryotes. [1]

But the new finding pushes back this evolutionary “optimization” far earlier in time. Once again, evolution’s heroics are moved to the distant past where no one can see. Early life was not simple.

And of course DNA needs to be accessed so this histone packaging is quite dynamic. It can roll or it can be removed and moved. Furthermore the histones themselves have tails that stick out and are tagged as needed to provide instructions to the various molecular machines that operate on them. Again, early life was not simple.

But the fact that histones are so similar across a wide range of species leads to an entirely different dilemma for evolution. For from an evolutionary perspective, it means that the histones must not tolerate change very well. Here is how a leading 1994 textbook described it:

When the number of amino acid differences in a particular protein is plotted for several pairs of species against the time since the species diverged, the result is a reasonably straight line. That is, the longer the period since divergence, the larger the number of differences. … When various proteins are compared, each shows a different but characteristic rate of evolution. Since all DNA base pairs are thought to be subject to roughly the same rate of random mutation, these different rates must reflect differences in the probability that an organism with a random mutation over the given protein will survive and propagate. Changes in amino acid sequence are evidently much more harmful for some proteins than for others. From Table 6-2 we can estimate that about 6 of every 7 random amino acid changes are harmful over the long term in hemoglobin, about 29 of every 30 amino acid changes are harmful in cytochrome c, and virtually all amino acid changes are harmful in histone H4. We assume that individuals who carried such harmful mutations have been eliminated from the population by natural selection. [2]

So the reason the histone proteins are so similar, again from an evolutionary perspective, is because mutations changing those proteins could not be tolerated. This is the evolutionary prediction and here is how the next edition of that same textbook, eight years later in the year 2002, added to the discussion of the high similarity of the histone proteins:

As might be expected from their fundamental role in DNA packaging, the histones are among the most highly conserved eucaryotic proteins. For example, the amino acid sequence of histone H4 from a pea and a cow differ at only at 2 of the 102 positions. This strong evolutionary conservation suggests that the functions of histones involve nearly all of their amino acids, so that a change in any position is deleterious to the cell. This suggestion has been tested directly in yeast cells, in which it is possible to mutate a given histone gene in vitro and introduce it into the yeast genome in place of the normal gene. As might be expected, most changes in histone sequences are lethal; the few that are not lethal cause changes in the normal pattern of gene expression, as well as other abnormalities.

There was only one problem. That is false. In fact, even at the time studies had already shown that histone H4 could well tolerate many changes. It was not merely an example of evolution pointing in the wrong direction and producing yet another failed prediction. It was an all too frequent example of evolution abusing science, force-fitting results into its framework. And of course all of this became doctrine for wider consumption. As a 2001 PBS documentary stated:

Histones interact with DNA in the chromosomes, providing structural support and regulating DNA activities such as replication and RNA synthesis. Their ability to bind to DNA depends upon a particular structure and shape. Virtually all mutations impair histone's function, so almost none get through the filter of natural selection. The 103 amino acids in this protein are identical for nearly all plants and animals.

But it is not, and was not, true that “virtually all mutations impair histone’s function.” That was not science, it was dogma disguised as science. And since then the dogma has become even more obvious. As one recent paper summarized:

Furthermore, recent systematic mutagenesis studies demonstrate that, despite the extremely well conserved nature of histone residues throughout different organisms, only a few mutations on the individual residues (including nonmodiﬁable sites) bring about prominent phenotypic defects.

It is remarkable how many residues in these highly conserved proteins can be mutated and retain basic nucleosomal function. … The high level of sequence conservation of histone proteins across phyla suggests a fitness advantage of these particular amino acid sequences during evolution. Yet comprehensive analysis indicates that many histone mutations have no recognized phenotype.

In fact, even more surprising for evolutionists, many mutations actually raised the fitness level:

Surprisingly, a subset of 27 histone mutants show a higher intensity after growth (log2 ratio >+1.5) suggesting they are collectively fitter and maintain a selective advantage under glucose limitation.

It was yet another falsified evolutionary prediction, and yet another example of evolution abusing science.

Now evolutionists propose a redundancy hypothesis. Those histone mutations are well tolerated because evolution constructed a backup mechanism. Both mechanisms would have to mutate and fail before any lethal effects could be felt.

As usual, contradictory results are accommodated by patching the theory with yet more epicycles. The epicycles make the theory far more complex, and far more unlikely, if that were so possible. In this case, evolution not only struck on incredible complexity, and did so early in history (before there were eukaryotes and nucleus’s in which to pack the DNA), but the whole design now must have incorporated layers of redundancy which we haven’t even been able to figure out yet.

And all of this, evolutionists insist, must be a fact. Anyone who would so much as doubt this truth must be blackballed.

It has been one misstep after another ever since the evolutionists stole the histones. Evolution is truly a profound theory, not for what it reveals about nature, but for what it reveals about people. Religion drives science, and it matters.

1) Loving the sensationalist photo. Biologists are arsonist hoodies now are they? Might we be getting a teeny bit paranoid here, Cornelius?

2) The discovery of chromatin in archaea is not a failed prediction or biologists 'pushing their heroics into the distant past where no-one can see' at all. It is yet another example of science adapting to new information following a discovery. That is all. No underhanded maneuvering at all. Really Cornelius, there is no need to cry foul or 'FAILED PREDICTION!' at every new discovery. Seriously, paranoia overload.

3) 'Tolerant' is a relative term. How tolerant is tolerant? Tolerant of what and under what circumstances? Where is anyone quantifying this? This is not a failed prediction. This is just you jumping around crying wolf to outrage the Faithful once again.

Darwin specifically predicted that there must be a unit of heredity. He didn't know what it was, but he said there must be one and one day it would be discovered. Then along came Gregor Mendel and proved him spectacularly correct, and vindicated Darwin's theory.

ie reproductive isolation is a prediction of baraminology.

1) that is not a prediction. That is a necessary component, perhaps...

2) it is not true. The tree of life is a series of nested hierarchies (at least until you get down to the roots where single-celled organisms confuse the pattern somewhat). There has indeed been no gene flow between Canidae and Felidae for millions of years, but they do in fact descend from a common ancestor - the LCA of the order Carnivora.

How about ring species fatboy? What does baraminology predict about them?

Also, didn't you just get done making a fool out of yourself with this claim?

Chubby Joke Gallien: "Look morons, if the dog family climbed up the branch of the tree of life it can climb back down. And if it can climb back down it can evolve into the common ancestor of dogs and cats. and THEN it can climb up the cat branch."

tard:How about ring species fatboy? What does baraminology predict about them?

That tehy are all part of teh same baramin, duh.

and-"Look morons, if the dog family climbed up the branch of the tree of life it can climb back down. And if it can climb back down it can evolve into the common ancestor of dogs and cats. and THEN it can climb up the cat branch."

But fatboy, the species on the ends of the ring are reproductively isolated. You just got done telling us that means they belong to different baramins.

Make up your mind Chubs.

and-"Look morons, if the dog family climbed up the branch of the tree of life it can climb back down. And if it can climb back down it can evolve into the common ancestor of dogs and cats. and THEN it can climb up the cat branch."

Darwin, discussing his theory of evolution through natural selection in On The Origin of Species... has nothing to do with evolution?

Huh?!

Mendel was a Creationist.

It doesn;t make the slightest difference what he believed. What matters is what he discovered. And he discovered the unit of inheritance - a discovery which was a massive vindication of Darwin's theory of evolution via natural selection, since he predicted such a thing must exist.

And yes reproducrtive isolation is a prediction of baraminology

1) How is it a prediction?

2) How does it explain the fact that life is grouped into nested hierarchies and NOT, in fact, into groups that never have been joined by common ancestors?

and you don't know what a nested hierarchy is.

I can assure you I do. It is the pattern which shows relatedness of all species. The pattern which is, in fact, seen throught the natural world.

Here it is in simplified form:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVDhierarchies.shtml

That fact that life IS grouped into nested hiearchies demonstrates common ancestry.

closet YEC thorton:the species on the ends of the ring are reproductively isolated.

Then how do you know they are part of teh ring- a ring doesn't have an end.

and-"Look morons, if the dog family climbed up the branch of the tree of life it can climb back down. And if it can climb back down it can evolve into the common ancestor of dogs and cats. and THEN it can climb up the cat branch."

Happens to be true

Then you think dogs and cats are the same baramin

No, I do not. What I am saying is wrt YOUR position, moron. WRT baraminology there isn't any tree of life, duh.

Linnean taxonomy, the observed nested hierarchy, was based on a common design and has nothing to do with any common ancestors.

What do you mean 'based on'? Do you mean 'drawn up under the assumption of'? 'Drawn up based on evidence of (which we have mysteriously kept secret from the rest of the world)'?

Clades form a nested hierarchy only because they are based on shared characteristics with all relationships assumed.

Maybe they were assumed at the time, but that was 250 years ago. Those relationships have been scrutinised continuously in light of growing evidence in the field of biology, including, of course, genetics. Sure some odd branches have been tweaked here and ther, but the general pattern remains true.

And anyway, why would life even fall into 'assumed' or 'apparent' nested hierachies if they were actualy unrelated. That doesn't make any sense. Why would they appear related if, in fact, they weren't?

thorton: "the species on the ends of the ring are reproductively isolated."

Then how do you know they are part of teh ring- a ring doesn't have an end.

Open a book instead of another case of Oreos Chubs. The 'ring' term refers to the circular geographic distribution of the animals. The animals at the ends of the ring are geographically close but reproductively isolated. According to you that makes them two different baramins.

See how stupid you look when you try to push your Biblical Creationist stupidity as science?

Buy a dictionary. And no the rest of the world knew- all evos did was steal it and change the names.

No, Joe. See, I was giving you a chance to explain in the hope that you weren't going down the foolish path I feared you were.

But you are.

What you actually mean is that Linnean taxonomy was drawn up by Carl Linnaeus, who was a Creationist. Therefore the observations he made HAVE to support creationism.

But anyone who thinks about this for longer than a nano-second will realise why this is nonesense. Facts are facts. They support what they support. An observation of the natural world does not necessarily support creationism just because the person making the observation happens to be a creationist, does it?

Look at this site. Seriously, go have a play around on it. It's very instructive. And note the fact that it shows, quite clearly, that every species shares a common ancestor with every other species sooner or later.

Yes, it, a common design, is an explanation for educated people. Also all of your evidence for a common ancestor can fit a common design.

That said there is no reason why evolution would produce a tree, especuially given the fact that single-celled organisms do not. And since single-celled organisms allegedly evolved into metazoans then we would expect one tehre either.

And the pattern fits a common design and there still isn't any evidence to account for all the differences observed.

Also all of your evidence for a common ancestor can fit a common design.

That is because ANY evidence can fit common design. Common design does not necessitate any particular pattern. So no particular pattern actively supports common design.

Common ancestry, however, DOES necessitate a particular pattern. And it is the pattern that we find. So this does act as positive support for common ancestry.

That said there is no reason why evolution would produce a tree, especuially given the fact that single-celled organisms do not.

Single-celled organisms are capable of horizontal gene transfer. Multi-celled organisms are not. So yes, given the nature of their reproduction, multi-celled organisms at least, if they arose from a common ancestor, must fit the branching tree pattern.

And they do. Did you look at the site I linked to? Here it is again. Seriously, go take a look:

http://tolweb.org/tree/

And the pattern fits a common design

ANY pattern fits common design. Common design does not necessitate any specific patterns. So no particular patterns will actively support it.

and there still isn't any evidence to account for all the differences observed.

True, but it does not disprove the core principles of evolution either.

Just because single-celled organisms are capable of horizontal gene transfer, does not mean they, along with multi-cellular life, DIDN'T come from a common ancestor, does it?

All of the observed differences. You do realize taht fish and amphibians are different? Right mr zoology?

The physical differences between fish and amphibians? Of course there is an explanation: since they time of their most recent common ancestor, they have been evolving separately. Therefore after millions of years of evolution, they are rather likely to end up looking remarkably different, aren't they? TA-DAH!

A family tree is not a branching tree. It is more of a mish-mosh of different families. More of a web/ net.

A family tree ends with just a single focal point - you.

No, it doesn't. I am part of my father's family tree. I am also part of my mother's family tree. I am just one node in a huge net. And given sexual reproduction one person can never be the focal point on a family tree.

How many mutations and to what genes- you know SCIENCE as opposed to childrens' bedtime stories.

Look it up, lazy-ass. I'm not going to do all your leg-work for you.

LoL! That information doesn't exist, so there is nothing to look up- your position cannot be quantified. That is why it ain't science.

BTW an Army forms a nested hierarchy, ie that pattern and an Army has nothing to do with common ancestry.

That is because the army has nothing to do with reproduction. New army members are recruited from an external population - they are not spawned from existing members.

What an imbecile. The Army being a nested hierarchy means that there is more than common ancestry that can produce that pattern. Which means a nested hierarchy is NOT evidence for common ancestry, duh.

And how, pray tell, is 'common design' significantly different from 'design'?

From your blog:

Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence.

Basically, 'evolutionists' have to disprove supernatural forces?

You must surely be aware that this is simply an impossible demand?

the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker

Say what, now?

Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.

Is yet again, just a fancy way of saying 'It looks designed, therefore design'.

You have once again failed to provide what you claim to be able to:

You cannot show how design is inferred.

You cannot show how design is tested.

You cannot come up with a single hypothetical piece or pattern of evidence that could possible falsify design.

Basically you are just showing your own position up to be as intellectually bankrupt as all serious scientists know it to be.

No, it doesn't. I am part of my father's family tree. I am also part of my mother's family tree. I am just one node in a huge net. And given sexual reproduction one person can never be the focal point on a family tree.

But you are not including every living person in your family tree, are you? You have to cut off somewhere.

LoL! That information doesn't exist, so there is nothing to look up- your position cannot be quantified. That is why it ain't science.

What the Hell are you flapping your gums about? You've just asked me to list every single genetic difference between a fish and an amphibian. Have you any idea what you're even asking?

Really, what do you think? That fish and amphibians are genetically identical? That there are no genetic similarities between fish and amphibians whatsoever?

Stop trying so frickin' hard to not understand other people and state your own position once in a while.

What an imbecile. The Army being a nested hierarchy means that there is more than common ancestry that can produce that pattern. Which means a nested hierarchy is NOT evidence for common ancestry, duh.

It really is literally painful to have a conversation with you. The sheer ignorance that drips of every word...

The REASON why the nested hierarchy in the army is not an example of common descent is that the army does not reproduce. New recruits are recruited externally. Soldiers do not create new soldiers by reproducing, do they?

In the natural world, animals DO reproduce. They are classified together into nested hierarchies based on their genetic and physical characteristics, which are acquired through inheritance. The nested hierarchy is essentially the pattern of that inheritance. So yes, it does show common ancestry.

You utter, utter fool.

Now why don't you go and play with a ball and leave the science to the big boys?

And how, pray tell, is 'common design' significantly different from 'design'?

The word "common" should be a clue.

Therefor to refute ID and any given design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and undirected processes can account for it. IOW all evotards have to do to stop ID cold is to actually step up and A) produce a tyestable hypothesis for their position and B) produce positive, supporting evidence.

Basically, 'evolutionists' have to disprove supernatural forces?

Only a moron would say that, and here you are.

no Ritchie, basically evolutionists have to actually provide positive evidence for their position. And that is something they cannot do.

the way to the design inference is THROUGH the blind watchmaker

Say what, now?

say you don't understand science.

Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.

Is yet again, just a fancy way of saying 'It looks designed, therefore design'.

Not even close. Ya see thorough investigation is required and if your position had any evidence, any at all, then we wouldn't infer design, duh.

You have once again failed to provide what you claim to be able to:

You cannot show how design is inferred.

You cannot show how design is tested.

I just showed you how you scientifically illiterate ass. Don't blame me for your ignorance, geez.

The way I said is the way archaeologists and forensic scientists do it, dumbass.

Basically you are just showing your own position up to be as intellectually bankrupt as all serious scientists know it to be.

Actually YOU are demonstrating that your position has nothing. The way to the design inference is through your position, dumbass. So if you had something, anything, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

LoL! That information doesn't exist, so there is nothing to look up- your position cannot be quantified. That is why it ain't science.

What the Hell are you flapping your gums about? You've just asked me to list every single genetic difference between a fish and an amphibian. Have you any idea what you're even asking?

Yes I am asking you to support your claims with science as opposed to "It looks like common ancestry to me"

What an imbecile. The Army being a nested hierarchy means that there is more than common ancestry that can produce that pattern. Which means a nested hierarchy is NOT evidence for common ancestry, duh.

The REASON why the nested hierarchy in the army is not an example of common descent is that the army does not reproduce. New recruits are recruited externally.

That is the point you moron. A nested hierarchy is NOT evidence for common ancestry.

They are classified together into nested hierarchies based on their genetic and physical characteristics,

Exactly! Based on characteristics, not relation.

which are acquired through inheritance.

LoL! THAT is what is being tested so you cannot just assume it.

The nested hierarchy is essentially the pattern of that inheritance. So yes, it does show common ancestry.

No, the nested hierarchy is essentially a pattern of design, just as Linneas said.

Linnean taxonomy- ie the observed nested hierarchy- has NOTHING to do with ancestry. Nothing at all.

And Zachriel has eaten it on nested hierarchies. He may have patince but he lacks knowledge.

Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.

For example in the nested hierarchy of living organisms we have the animal kingdom.

To be placed in the animal kingdom an organism must have all of the criteria of an animal.

For example:

All members of the Animalia are multicellular (eukaryotes), and all are heterotrophs (that is, they rely directly or indirectly on other organisms for their nourishment). Most ingest food and digest it in an internal cavity.

Animal cells lack the rigid cell walls that characterize plant cells. The bodies of most animals (all except sponges) are made up of cells organized into tissues, each tissue specialized to some degree to perform specific functions.

The next level (after kingdom) contain the phyla. Phyla have all the characteristics of the kingdom PLUS other criteria.

Chordates have all the characteristics of the Kingdom PLUS the following:

Chordates are defined as organisms that possess a structure called a notochord, at least during some part of their development. The notochord is a rod that extends most of the length of the body when it is fully developed. Lying dorsal to the gut but ventral to the central nervous system, it stiffens the body and acts as support during locomotion. Other characteristics shared by chordates include the following (from Hickman and Roberts, 1994):

bilateral symmetry

segmented body, including segmented muscles

three germ layers and a well-developed coelom.

single, dorsal, hollow nerve cord, usually with an enlarged anterior end (brain)

tail projecting beyond (posterior to) the anus at some stage of development

pharyngeal pouches present at some stage of development

ventral heart, with dorsal and ventral blood vessels and a closed blood system

complete digestive system

bony or cartilaginous endoskeleton usually present.

The next level is the class. All classes have the criteria of the kingdom, plus all the criteria of its phylum PLUS the criteria of its class.

This is important because it shows there is a direction- one of additive characteristics.

Yet evolution does NOT have a direction. Characteristics can be lost as well as gained. And characteristics can remain stable.

All that means is the theory of evolution would be OK regardless of any pattern observed.

Why can't you just answer a simple question? Actually, we both know the answer to that - you're handwaving. Again. Because there isn't a difference. 'Design' and 'Common Design' are not separate hypothesis. They are the same - the idea that everything is designed. A position which proposes no mechanisms, makes no predictions, cannot be inferred and has absolutely zero supporting evidence.

no Ritchie, basically evolutionists have to actually provide positive evidence for their position. And that is something they cannot do.

There is ample evidence for evolution. Absolutely tonnes of it.

What you are asking is for biologists to prove that this evidence came from NATURAL AS OPPOSED TO NON-NATURAL forces - ie, to discount the possibility of the supernatural. Which is an impossible demand. The supernatural can never be discounted. Which is why it has no place in science.

say you don't understand science.

Can you just stop with the blind insults for just a moment, you total window-licking spazz? You've just said that design is inferred through the Blind Watchmaker. What the Hell does that even mean? The Blind Watchmaker is Dawkins' term for evolution. So design is inferred through evolution? What the Hell are you yapping on about?

Not even close. Ya see thorough investigation is required and if your position had any evidence, any at all, then we wouldn't infer design, duh.

I asked what evidence there was for design. This has nothing to do with whether there is evidence for evolution (there is - plenty of it, but again, that is besides the point). How would we falsify design? How would we even detect it?

I just showed you how you scientifically illiterate ass.

NO YOU HAVEN'T!!! I have asked you again and again and again, and all you do is evade. You have not shown me one study, one experiment, nor a single observation that suggests design. You have not produced a single mechanism by which design is supposed to work. You have not come up with a single hypothetical piece or pattern of evidence which could possibly disprove design. I have asked for these many times, and you have consistently come up with nothing at all.

That is the point you moron. A nested hierarchy is NOT evidence for common ancestry.

It is in the case of animals, mouth-breather!

"They are classified together into nested hierarchies based on their genetic and physical characteristics,"

Exactly! Based on characteristics, not relation.

A creature's characteristics is determined by their genes! Genes which they inherit! FROM THEIR ANCESTORS!!!

Seriously, do you fall down a lot?

"which are acquired through inheritance."

LoL! THAT is what is being tested so you cannot just assume it.

WHAT?!?!

1) A creature's body is determined by its genes.2) A creature inherits its genes from it parents via conception.

Which of these two points are you having problems with? I realise the terminally pig-ignorant such as yourself might have an issue accepting then, but I assure you neither of these statements are in the slightest bit of scientific doubt.

No, the nested hierarchy is essentially a pattern of design, just as Linneas said.

No, it is a pattern of FEATURES. Features which Linneas might have assumed were the result of design. And if so, he was wrong there. Features, we now know, are determined by GENES. Which are inherited from our ancestors. So the pattern is actually one of inheritance - of ancestry.

The next level is the class. All classes have the criteria of the kingdom, plus all the criteria of its phylum PLUS the criteria of its class.

This is important because it shows there is a direction- one of additive characteristics.

Yet evolution does NOT have a direction. Characteristics can be lost as well as gained. And characteristics can remain stable.

You weren't doing too badly right up until this point. Here is where your train of logic breaks from its rail and plummets of the Cliff of Reasoning into Retard Gorge.

Biological taxonomy classifies living species into separate groups known as taxa.

Animalia is a taxon at the Kingdom level. After Kingdom comes, as you say, Phylum. And yes, Chordata is a Phylum within the Kingdom Animalia.

Then there is indeed, Class. However, then you introduce a totally barking point about direction.

In one sense, yes evolution DOES have a direction - towards increased fitness. Always towards increased fitness. That is a direction. Which is constant.

Yes, features can be lost, but Linnean taxonomy does not work on the presumption that features can only be accumulated. The order Cetacea (dolphins and whales) is characterised by, among other things, the loss of the back legs, but that does not stop it fitting into the class Mammalia, does it?

Yes, they are. A common design is a very specific subset of the design hypothesis. You can have design without a common design.

They are the same - the idea that everything is designed.

Nope, neither says everything is designed.

A position which proposes no mechanisms, makes no predictions, cannot be inferred and has absolutely zero supporting evidence.

So archaeology and forensics are useless?

I asked what evidence there was for design.

And I told you but you refused to read it. It is all on my blog. You've been there. Search it for "supporting intelligent design"- read the first one that isn't a guest post.

How would we falsify design? How would we even detect it?

I just showed you how you scientifically illiterate ass.

NO YOU HAVEN'T!!!

Yes I did you moron- we do it the same way archaeology, SETI and forensics does it- we eliminate necessity and chance and we observe some specification, ie a function and/ or meaning or counterflow.

That said, you will always take this cowardly position- "NO YOU HAVEN'T" because you are too cowardly to provide a testable hypothesis and positive evidence for unguided evolution.

That is the point you moron. A nested hierarchy is NOT evidence for common ancestry.

It is in the case of animals,

Cuz you say so? LoL!

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR!

A creature's characteristics is determined by their genes!

No, that is false. Genes influence characteristics but they do not determine them.

No one knows what makes an eye a human eye as opposed to a mouse eye- there aren't any "human eye genes".

What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

As for the gene-centric view, Dr Denton puts that to rest in his article in "Uncommon Dissent":

To understand the challenge to the “superwatch” model by the erosion of the gene-centric view of nature, it is necessary to recall August Weismann’s seminal insight more than a century ago regarding the need for genetic determinants to specify organic form. As Weismann saw so clearly, in order to account for the unerring transmission through time with precise reduplication, for each generation of “complex contingent assemblages of matter” (superwatches), it is necessary to propose the existence of stable abstract genetic blueprints or programs in the genes- he called them “determinants”- sequestered safely in the germ plasm, away from the ever varying and destabilizing influences of the extra-genetic environment.

Such carefully isolated determinants would theoretically be capable of reliably transmitting contingent order through time and specifying it reliably each generation. Thus, the modern “gene-centric” view of life was born, and with it the heroic twentieth century effort to identify Weismann’s determinants, supposed to be capable of reliably specifying in precise detail all the contingent order of the phenotype. Weismann was correct in this: the contingent view of form and indeed the entire mechanistic conception of life- the superwatch model- is critically dependent on showing that all or at least the vast majority of organic form is specified in precise detail in the genes.

Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype. The emerging picture made it increasingly difficult to see genes as Weismann’s “unambiguous bearers of information” or view them as the sole source of the durability and stability of organic form. It is true that genes influence every aspect of development, but influencing something is not the same as determining it. Only a small fraction of all known genes, such as the developmental fate switching genes, can be imputed to have any sort of directing or controlling influence on form generation. From being “isolated directors” of a one-way game of life, genes are now considered to be interactive players in a dynamic two-way dance of almost unfathomable complexity, as described by Keller in The Century of The Gene.

As for the pattern of inheritance- humans give rise to humans, fish give rise to fish, prokaryotes give rise to prokaryotes. That is what we observe. taht is what we can test. That is all science can say.

Linne was right- common design rules- heck even you admit that evolution can't even evolve a cat from a dog- basically the same body plan, very little difference. Yet out of your ass you expect us to accept it can create totally new body plans with new body parts- all without any evidence.

The next level is the class. All classes have the criteria of the kingdom, plus all the criteria of its phylum PLUS the criteria of its class.

This is important because it shows there is a direction- one of additive characteristics.

Yet evolution does NOT have a direction. Characteristics can be lost as well as gained. And characteristics can remain stable.

You weren't doing too badly right up until this point. Here is where your train of logic breaks from its rail and plummets of the Cliff of Reasoning into Retard Gorge.

Retard gorge- that's your home!

Biological taxonomy classifies living species into separate groups known as taxa.

Yes, I know.

Animalia is a taxon at the Kingdom level. After Kingdom comes, as you say, Phylum. And yes, Chordata is a Phylum within the Kingdom Animalia.

Yes, I know.

Then there is indeed, Class.

Yes, I know

However, then you introduce a totally barking point about direction.

No barking, it is very relevant if you understand nested hierarchies, which you do not.

In one sense, yes evolution DOES have a direction - towards increased fitness. Always towards increased fitness. That is a direction. Which is constant.

What a dick! The direction pertains to teh nested hierarchy, which DEMANDS the direction I stated. and also I stated evolution doesn't have that direction. Please TRY to follow along.

But anyway, say that in order to be a certain species you need 10 unique characteristics- defining characteristics.

Then say you have this transitional form which has 5 characteristics unique to one species and 5 unique to another. IOW it doesn't have 10 unique to itself.

Where do you put it? And how does that transitional form nor destroy your nested hierarchy? Or does it just force you to reformulate the entire thing, causing you to use fewer and fewer diagnostic characteristics?

Yes, features can be lost, but Linnean taxonomy does not work on the presumption that features can only be accumulated.

Yes, they are. A common design is a very specific subset of the design hypothesis. You can have design without a common design.

If you say so. Then please briefly define each and point out the relevent differences.

So archaeology and forensics are useless?

Archaeology and forensics are not fields of biology. How are their principles applicable to the natural world?

It is all on my blog. You've been there. Search it for "supporting intelligent design"- read the first one that isn't a guest post.

Thanks, Joe, I needed a good laugh. And my goodness I got one on your blog...

You do actually give three 'predictions' for ID:

1) If the universe was the product of a common design then I would expect it to be governed by one (common) set of parameters.

Potentially falsified, apparently, by the observation that the universe is 'chaotic'.

But these are relative terms. How chaotic is 'chaotic', exactly? What data would we expect to see if the universe was 'chaotic'? There are many physicists who will tell you the universe is a very chaotic place. It is a relative term - ie, useless.

And it's especially hilarious coming from someone who believes that the one (common - whatever that might mean in this instance) set of parameters ARE violated occassionally - in the form of miracles.

2) If the universe were designed for scientific discovery then I would expect a strong correlation between habitability and measurability.

Who said anything about them being designed "for scientific discovery"? You are trying to establish whether or not it was designed, not speculating on what purpose it might have been designed for. By doing the latter, you are smuggling in the assumption of design. Invalid.

3) Also if the universe was designed for scientific discovery I would expect it to be comprehensible.

Possibly the most hilarious since you attempt to verify this prediction with a rhetorical QUOTE from Eistein saying the universe's comprehensibility is incomprehensible. Science has moved on in the last half a century since Einstein. Quantum theory is pretty much in vogue now - that theory which is FAMOUS for being so maddeningly difficult to grasp.

Here's a tip, Joe - predictions need to predict facts. They need to predict data that we can then possibly go and find. Your 'predictions' amount to nothing much because they do not actually predict any potential evidence.

Points for effort, but no banana.

we do it the same way archaeology, SETI and forensics does it- we eliminate necessity and chance and we observe some specification, ie a function and/ or meaning or counterflow.

Great. Give me an example of that in action please - FROM THE NATURAL WORLD.

you are too cowardly to provide a testable hypothesis and positive evidence for unguided evolution.

As I have explained to you over and over, that is an impossible request. You are asking me to disprove the supernatual. Which cannot be done. You might as well ask me to scientifically prove 'justice' exists. It isn't science.

Cuz you say so? LoL!

No, because it's demonstrably true.

No, that is false. Genes influence characteristics but they do not determine them.

What characteristics aren't determined by genes? What determines them if not genes?

No one knows what makes an eye a human eye as opposed to a mouse eye- there aren't any "human eye genes".

There are genes for eyes in the human genome. Those are human eyes.

In his book “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following :

I simply have no idea what point the quote (or you) is trying to make. Are you trying to simply TELL me that I do not know what makes a species? In which case you will have to explain explicitly why "Its genome" is an insufficient answer.

As for the gene-centric view, Dr Denton puts that to rest in his article in "Uncommon Dissent"

The quote says: "There was no longer the slightest justification for believing there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype." But does not explain why. What is it about the phenotype that the genome is lacking? Does he explain elsewhere the book?

As for the pattern of inheritance- humans give rise to humans, fish give rise to fish, prokaryotes give rise to prokaryotes. That is what we observe. taht is what we can test. That is all science can say.

We observe speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

That is precisely the pattern common ancestry necessitates.

heck even you admit that evolution can't even evolve a cat from a dog- basically the same body plan, very little difference. Yet out of your ass you expect us to accept it can create totally new body plans with new body parts- all without any evidence.

Oh dear Lord, this is pitiful...

I thought we'd been over this. You've obviously learnt nothing. The reason a dog cannot give rise to a cat is because they are separate lineages. Evolution does not jump across from one branch to another. The pattern is BRANCHING.

That isn't to say dogs cannot produce a great variety of body shapes though. Look at all the different breeds there are. Great danes, chihuahuas, terriers, dobermans and German Shepards all have distinct features, don't they? And yet they are all still dogs.

Retard gorge- that's your home!

Good one. Have you ever thought about a career in stand-up comedy?

The direction pertains to teh nested hierarchy, which DEMANDS the direction I stated.

NO IT DOES NOT, twat-face.

It only appears to have direction because you are looking at it from a certain perspective. Let's look at it from the level of the species now, shall we?

A creature must have certain characteristics to be classified on the species level.

The species taxon is nested inside the genus taxon. Creatures need FEWER characteristics to be admitted as a member of the relevant genus.

Next up is family. Creatures need EVEN FEWER characteristics to be classified by their family.

Does this imply any LOSS of features in the animals?

No, of course it doesn't. It is just a certain way of looking at the model as a whole.

When you look at animals which make up a 'species' they all share those species features. Now pull back and look at the animals which make up the whole genera. They have fewer features IN COMMON, but that says nothing about whether they will gain or lose features OVER TIME, does it? Losing features will not mean that that species no longer belongs within its genus.

But anyway, say that in order to be a certain species you need 10 unique characteristics- defining characteristics.

Okay, I'll go with it.

Then say you have this transitional form which has 5 characteristics unique to one species and 5 unique to another. IOW it doesn't have 10 unique to itself.

Where do you put it?

Then you have a new species. What's more, that species has to be the ancestor species of your other two.

A nested hierarchy demands it. Otherwise you lose containment.

Whales have lost their hind limbs (externally, anyway). They are still mammals. Blind cave fish have lost their eyes. They are still a species of the genus Astyanax. Manx cats have lost their tails. They are still a breed of domestic cat.

As for the pattern of inheritance- humans give rise to humans, fish give rise to fish, prokaryotes give rise to prokaryotes. That is what we observe. taht is what we can test. That is all science can say.

We observe speciation:

So what? Speciation does NOT bring about new body plans and new body parts.

The reason a dog cannot give rise to a cat is because they are separate lineages.

That doesn't stop one from evolving into the other.

The direction pertains to teh nested hierarchy, which DEMANDS the direction I stated.

NO IT DOES NOT

Strange that I provided a reference that says it does. That is what "consit and contain" mean, dumbass.

Then say you have this transitional form which has 5 characteristics unique to one species and 5 unique to another. IOW it doesn't have 10 unique to itself.

Where do you put it?

Then you have a new species. What's more, that species has to be the ancestor species of your other two.

Nope it doesn't have to be an ancestor. But where does it go in the nested hierarchy? The nested hierarchy demands 10 characteristics and this species doesn't have that.

So what? Speciation does NOT bring about new body plans and new body parts.

Why not? Speciation obviously brings great variety on existing body plans. Look at the variation we see among dogs. And that's how new body parts come about - not by a sudden appearance, but by an accumulation of small and subtle changes over long periods of time until what you end up with is actually significantly different to what you started with.

"The reason a dog cannot give rise to a cat is because they are separate lineages."

That doesn't stop one from evolving into the other.

Yes it does. That absolutely does stop one evolving into the other.

Strange that I provided a reference that says it does. That is what "consit and contain" mean, dumbass.

And the manx cat no longer sits within the species of domestic cat because it has lost it's tail? Blind cave fish no longer sit within the genus Astyanax because they have lost their eyes? Get a clue.

Nope it doesn't have to be an ancestor.

How else could it contain features otherwise unique to two separate species?

The nested hierarchy demands 10 characteristics and this species doesn't have that.

Wait, what are you saying, exactly? Are you saying:

A) That a species needs to have 10 unique characteristics to be classed as a unique species in its own right,

or

B) That a species needs 10 unique characteristics to count as a species AT ALL?

or

C) Something else

The only criteria of a species (an yes, it is an inexact measure) is whether it is genetically distinct - that is, a species is considered a species of its own if it cannot crossbreed with other species to produce fertile young.

It's impossible to support your position?

No, it is impossible to disprove the supernatural. Because that is unscientific. And if your position requires even the possibility of the supernatural then it is unscientific too.

No dumbass, I am asking you to support YOUR position.

There is a plethora of evidence which shows the mechanisms of evolution. The only thing they cannot do is to show that the mechanisms are UNGUIDED (presumably by some supernatural force) which is what you are asking. And that is impossible to show.

OK Ritchie, tell us where these human eye genes are- you know the genes that determine the type of eye the organism has.

On the human genome.

Ta-dah.

Good luck with that mr poopology.

Ouch! Now that's embarrassing. I've got no response for this at all. You're really shown my up and made me look like an idiot by your brilliant mockery of my academic qualifications by swapping the root word with 'poop'. So intelligent and insightful of you. I guess my scientific credentials which are directly relevant to this discussion count for nothing now... :-(

Really? Look at the two different species of chimp. Look at all the different species of vole. All the same body plan and body parts.

You cannot point to one case of speciation producing new body plans with new body parts.

It's impossible to support your position?

No, it is impossible to disprove the supernatural.

What an ignorant coward you are. Supporting your position does NOT require disproving the supernatural.

There is a plethora of evidence which shows the mechanisms of evolution.

Yes, but ID is not anti-evolution- and you are ignorant of what ID says and what is being debated.

The only thing they cannot do is to show that the mechanisms are UNGUIDED (presumably by some supernatural force) which is what you are asking.

That is just coawrdly ignorance. You have to demonstrate that the mutations are random/ chance/ happenstance events. You ahve to show that blind and undirected processes can actually construct new protein configurations.

Yet you have nothing but your cowardly ignorance. If ID didn't exist you still couldn't support your position.

IOW Ritchie, supporting your position has NOTHING to do with the supernatural. Meaning you do NOT have to disprove it. You just need POSITIVE evidence that blind and undirected processes can do it. AND you have to demonstrate how you determined the processes were blind and undirected.

I didn't post any porn and no amount of lies will ever change that fact.

You went to a science board and posted a close-up shot of a woman's genitalia along with countless vulgar obscenities to disrupt and insult people. That's a fact. Everyone else trying to have a civil discussion was thoroughly disgusted by your actions, including the board owner, so you got banned. That's a fact too.

You've already shown that sort of disgusting behavior here when you post vulgar obscenities and force CH to clean up after you.

Do you not consider it weird to find yourself forced to argue against Evolution (not adaptations within the same species) as a coherent, indeed, intelligible, hypothesis, when it can only represent a half of the answer it claims to provide?

The 'primordial soup' has been utterly discredited, rubbished, so why is the very life, the very vivifying principle absolutely required by an organism for it to be capable of any kind of growth, adaptation, evolution, development, etc., 'the elephant in the living-room' it palpably IS?

It's as if you were all discussing a motor of some kind, in which the fuel it was supposed to operate on was totally inapt, and thus the machine was 'a priori' effectively, a fantasy, a maquette, totally inoperative, non-functional, at the most fundamental level. So evolutionist, in fact, treat nature as an assemblage of lifeless maquettes, rendering their argument nul 'a priori'.

Moreover we know random chance must be by far the most inefficient agent in nature, imaginable, even if it were capable of 'designing', purpose-built, natural 'gadgets' without life or any capacity for growth, adaptation, evolution, development, etc., but merely utensils; while life is, in fact, 'the elephant in the living-room.

Origin of life is the materialists weakest link. They can't even spin a consistent and logical lie with OoL as they do biological evolution.

The trend is to push back more and more complexity back to the universal common ancestor. All this complex stuff of the supposed universal common ancestor is the fundamental biology of all of life, including humans. It is indeed strange that this has not evolved. This shows tremendous forethought and planning.

Life does not follow an evolutionary timeline of clunky to better and more complex, but it is like all of life is build on the same release level... just different configurations and adaptions of the same technology. This shows great forethought. The creator took great care in using a kind of modular systems design approach.

That's an interesting way of putting it, Neal: just modular, differing configurations, not evolving. Giving them enough 'evolution-oriented' appearances (e.g. male nipples), to encourage them to run riot with it, to their eventual downfall.

The foresight you invoke for the latter's creation, being given an actually coherent slant, as opposed to that putatively vouchsafed by a curious divinity by the name of Random Chance, as if God deliberately leads on the foolish to dig a pitfall for themselves, 'scattering the proud in the imagination of their hearts'.

I've always suspected that the vastness of the universe could be a classic example of such a trick. I wouldn't be dogmatic about there being no extra-terrestrial life out there, but it strikes me as the sort of trick God would pull on atheists!

That atheists' hysteria over Galileo's discovery that the earth revolves around the sun is another instance, isn't it, what with the physicists now having discovered that the universe has no preferred centre.

'Why would an omniscient, omnipotent God care tuppence about a mere mortal human being? 'Well, Mr Materialist, Sor, because he doesn't think like you. Size, scale means nothing to him. He created everything out of nothing, so why would the magnitude of the universe be a 'big deal' to him? He's just not 'into' materialism.

Must be somewhat since He choose to create it. But then again who can know the mind of God?

as if God deliberately leads on the foolish to dig a pitfall for themselves, 'scattering the proud in the imagination of their hearts'.

Careful,deliberately misleading another is also known as a lie,no matter who the another is.

I've always suspected that the vastness of the universe could be a classic example of such a trick. I wouldn't be dogmatic about there being no extra-terrestrial life out there, but it strikes me as the sort of trick God would pull on atheists!

I don't follow, certainly one of the main goals of godless science is discovering life beyond earth, in fact from an evolutionary ool view it would increase the probability that life was likely given favorable initial conditions.

Of course it would have not effect on a God centered theory,though it would be interesting from a Theological view. Are all God's creatures doomed to " Fall" or does an extraterrestrial Garden of Eden exist? Did Jesus's death save ET too?

John“For something to be so strongly conserved, it would seem there would be a conserving force.”

Yes, there has to be a” protecting-conserving mechanism”. Some parts of DNA are allowed to change-possibly randomly, some parts are very and some possibly extremely protected-conserved i.e. not allowed to change. Some of these protected parts of DNA would be genes coding for proteins-chemical components of molecular machines like polymerase or ribosome. They have been around for billions of years and must be, the core parts of the system.

Also, this” protecting-conserving mechanism” should be conserved. So how is the conserver conserved? Is it elephants all the way up?

I’m not a biologist but reading about intra-cell processes it has to work somewhat like that-not the elephants :)

I am not a biologist either,but from years of construction experience there are small changes that have no effect on the integrity of the structure but weaken the foundation and the building collapses . Perhaps highly conserved structures are the same,dicker around with those much and it is catastrophic , the creature is fini before it started. Just a thought

I don't follow, certainly one of the main goals of godless science is discovering life beyond earth, in fact from an evolutionary ool view it would increase the probability that life was likely given favorable initial conditions.

An evolutionary ool view (much like most evolutionary views) is usually based on unfalsifiable hypothetical goo and imaginary Rorschach tests. It seems that views vary, except with respect to one thing... the Creator never touched nature... and more specifically, it's the God of the Jews. That seems to be the the only specification for pagan creation myths.

So imagine... what would the implications for "evolution" be if multiple dimensional aliens from the multiverse put in an appearance here and claimed that they were the creators of man's evolution but that the God of the Jews was invented or whatever (Surprise... imagine that!). And then imagine if they began the construction of pyramid schemes to be like unto the Most High that the Jews claim once led them out. I.e. the One who supposedly cannot touch nature... invariably, in all creation myths of paganism and evolution. Curious, because that seems to be the sole defining characteristic of all the contradictory accounts of modern creation myths and "evolution" in the end. Indeed, given hypothetical goo of the evolutionary sort one might even imagine what the God of the Jews wouldn't do to justify imagining multiple universes or an infinite amount of pagan creation myths. Yet one can never imagine what the singular Creator of all, might do. Imagine that!

It seems that views vary, except with respect to one thing... the Creator never touched nature... and more specifically, it's the God of the Jews. That seems to be the the only specification for pagan creation myths

More accurate might be for science,it is not a requirement, and definitely not an assumption. No Deus ex machina

So imagine... what would the implications for "evolution" be if multiple dimensional aliens from the multiverse put in an appearance here and claimed that they were the creators of man's evolution

Theories change as new facts emerge, I expect scientists would have lots of questions, like how,why, when.

that the God of the Jews was invented or whatever (Surprise... imagine that!)

I doubt that would be too surprising for some.

Most High that the Jews claim once led them out. I.e. the One who supposedly cannot touch nature

An omnipotent God by definition can do anything logically possible

Yet one can never imagine what the singular Creator of all, might do. Imagine that

One may imagine whatever one wants,the question is proving it. Though if one assumes certain qualities for thar singular Creator,one could examine whether those attributes were consistent with observed facts.

Are all God's creatures doomed to " Fall" or does an extraterrestrial Garden of Eden exist? Did Jesus's death save ET too?

Unlikely, thus the jealously and hatred... I'd imagine. Note that if any alien entities existed then they would probably essentially have to have some type of technique or ontological status by which they could travel faster than the speed of light.

According to Jewish tradition and theology the Cosmos is like a prison for $atan... but some have a Kabbalah for the cabal and you aren't in it.

Anyway, still waiting on the "order out of chaos" creation myths that have trickled down from the top to lower levels to reach the limit of their usefulness.

A satire of flat minds: "How could it be some type of a conspiracy when I'm a scientist with brain events that emerged from a void of ignorance or somethin'!" Etc. The thing about some forms of ignorance being passed off as the equivalent of knowledge/scientia is that they rely on ignoring deeply significant aspects and dimensions to reality as we know it.

The thing about some forms of ignorance being passed off as the equivalent of knowledge/scientia is that they rely on ignoring deeply significant aspects and dimensions to reality as we know it

There is no doubt science has limitations. How do propose verifying these aspects of reality, revelation,intuition , gut feelings,?Each of these also have limitations .

Last night listening to late night radio, the caller asked the host " how do you know aliens are evil?" He replied of course they are,have you ever heard anything about aliens doing anything good? That was aspects and dimensions of reality which he felt that knowledge / scientia were ignoring.

Interesting comparison... what is the status of their funding based on paper ponzi and their links to the banksters currently financing the government and the corrupt politicians and so on? Maybe one shouldn't be surprised that their creation myths originally arose from projecting "capitalism" onto nature and quickly became deeply linked to governments around the world. Not that the proponents of evolution and pagan creation myths, whatever they are imagined to be, understood capitalism then or now. (After all... it's not necessarily the equivalent of "survival of the fittest" based on rule by banksters, thieves and psychopaths.)

This shows great forethought. The creator took great care in using a kind of modular systems design approach.

Yeah... so when infants are torn apart in the womb or the infantry is blown apart in wars... well. Ironically if we had actually invested in and created technologies of this sort we'd probably care for it better.

Meanwhile, people are profiting from dumping industrial waste like fluoride in the water supply or changing the levels of allowable radiation from nuclear plants and so on and so forth. Ironically, there will probably be some stupid and ignorant person passing themselves off as a priest of knowledge trying to imagine ways to blame the Creator for the birth defects or whatever else later. As if they could invent better ways to conserve life and give birth to consciousness?

Evolutionists have been very effective in creating the narratives for which skeptics are often drawn into, while avoiding the more important subjects. These narratives distract and dumb down a serious and thorough evaluation of all the research data.

For example, evolutionists created the narrative to get everyone talking about all the similarities between life forms while not talking much about the more important differences between life forms.

Another narrative they've created is framing the discussion around the clunkiness and inefficiency of life. The narrative suggests that there will be useless or inefficiencies. This narrative then suggests that when a function is not readily apparent for a body part, then the default argument immediately goes to evidence of evolution.

Narratives are very clever because they assume a higher truth (or deception) and thereby narrow the focus away from considering all the data.

For example, male nipples. This is just my thought, but it certainly does make sense that males would have nipples since the male and female embryo start from the same basic template and then the different features of male and female begin to differentiate during further development. It's actually a very elegant design feature to get so much variety off the same template by simply tweaking the program a bit.

Laryngeal Nerve. The evolutionists narrative is usually very narrowly defined and misses the bigger picture.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1507

They also have a narrative regarding the place of man in the cosmos. They've done this by creating the narrative that assumes that the center of the universe equals being Special and that if one is not at the center of the universe than one is not special. It really silly, but its the narrative.

These narrow and misleading Narratives often get everyone arguing about the wrong thing. They waste a lot of energy for those that oppose the narrative but provide an effective sound bite for hooking uninformed consumers that lack critical thinking skills.

It's time that we aren't distracted by the narrow narratives that the evolutionists create, but become more effective with creating our own narratives that take into account the bigger picture. We are finding biological design to be more elegant and intricate and intelligent from top to bottom than we imagined. We have allowed the materialists to steal the conversation and create the narrative. There needs to be a shift of the narrative to a holistic and systems approach to viewing life. There are indeed better narratives from the design viewpoint, but we can't built them off of the narrow and muddled thinking of evolutionists.

The future has never been brighter for those on the side of creative design, but we have to build our own playing fields and not waste as much time playing in the mud on their terms.

The Constructionist Design Methodology (CDM) was developed by artificial intelligence (AI) researcher Kristinn R. Thórisson and his students at Columbia University and Reykjavik University for use in the development of cognitive robotics, communicative humanoids and broad AI systems. The creation of such systems requires integration of a large number of functionalities that must be carefully coordinated to achieve coherent system behavior. CDM is based on iterative design steps that lead to the creation of a network of named interacting modules, communicating via explicitly typed streams and discrete messages. CDM has been used in the creation of many systems including robotics, facial animation, large-scale simulation and virtual humans. One of the first systems was MIRAGE, a simulated human in an augmented-reality environment that could interact with people through speech and gesture.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/